1) This post has nothing to do with Apple.
2) This isn't a APPLE PR site, the point of publishing news about competitors is to relate it Apple, or the Apple fan community
3) If someone doesn't understand something and they're writing about it professionally, the professional thing to do is educate yourself.
4) DED didn't post this as a forum topic, he posted it as a NEWS item and intentionally misrepresented information. (DED's not stupid, just fanatical)

Most android sites don't post Apple specific news, or if they do they at least try to read up on the topic to give intelligent commentary.

Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.

Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.

No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menno

It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.

The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.

Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menno

Yes, let's ignore the over FOUR YEARS of device history, upgrade path history, etc. all because of a PAIR of letters in a SINGLE leaked document..

No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

No, you're insinuating something and providing ZERO evidence for justifying that POV when ALL company statements, and financial data contradicts it.

Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).

Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.

No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.

Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.

No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.

Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.

The documents show NOTHING that android users (or anyone not willfully ignorant who looked) didn't know of for years.

look, i'm sorry, but now you're just making sh*t up to pretend it doesn't mean simply what it says. they're engineers! (like you could possibly know who the authors really were). their English composition skills are poor! (let's stereotype engineers as grammer-challenged). like i said, you remind me of the bitter-end Nixon defenders. as i wrote way back earlier, it will be fun to see the contortions the Google-aid drinkers go through to explain this away. bottom's up! you can have the last word tonight, i'm going to bed.

Look, if you're going to act like an idiot and pretend that the use of the letters "ie" before Motorola and Verizon is some piece of damning evidence, you should probably look at the whole slide. Particularly, the last bullet point where the slide's author again incorrectly uses "ie" and refers solely to GoogleTV even though the sentence is clearly talking about multiple devices. (Or you could just look at the very beginning of the slide when the author mispells "shepherd".)

Why do Apple fans feel so much hatred toward anything that competes with the big A?

Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).

Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.

And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime. Up until the Motorola purchase (they haven't commented since) Google execs have gone on record saying that they've made enough from Android to pay its bills, and well over 50% of that number you quoted is the motorola deal, something they've ALSO gone on record multiple times about why they did it, an you're ignoring all of those reasons.

All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)

Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"

And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime.

All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)

Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"

First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.

Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.

As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?

What's with the 'tude, dude? I was simply offering a reason stated by a writer. I didn't say it was right. In fact, my "um" was actually me questioning whether or not that was such a great prize. Take a Valium.

Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.

First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.

Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.

As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?

I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.

Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.

No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)

The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.

Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.

Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.

I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.

I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.

Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.

No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)

The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.

Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.

I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?

I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.

From observing the media, it seems that they favor "giving the ink" to the people with the big personalities, the people who can write the most "interesting" narrative for the events. In the world of SEO, Bounce Rate, and Engagement on the internet, nothing brings the viewers like an extremely biased voice. (see even our current "presidential debates" and who the media focuses on)

And writers are giving rational views (such as Mr. Kincaid's article at TechCrunch). But that won't happen with Florian Mueller, and it wont happen with DED either because they write a narrative, they don't write news articles.

I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?

Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.

I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.

Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.

I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.

See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.

See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.

Because you have to consider when android was made (before the iphone) in 2004-2005 Microsoft was a major player in the mobile smartphone market. It doesn't MATTER if a service is better than the other, reality shows us that most people will continue using their stock setup (why Internet Explorer is still so popular, for example) So all it would take is for Microsoft to lock Bing as the "must use" search on their phones and then suddenly a huge potential market would be lost.

It already happened with blackberry (you CANNOT change your preferred search engine on Verizon Blackberry's, you can only bookmark Google). Bing Being horrible is what's keeping a company like Apple, who tends to consider things other than the "deal" (such as how it affects user experience) from accepting a bid from Microsoft to include Bing.

In a lot of ways, Apple entering the market helped Google protect their marketshare because it pretty much killed Windows Mobile 6 and opened up the market to new entrants, since HTC/Samsung/Motorola/etc were looking for something that could take on this "next gen" OS. Sure, Microsoft responded with WP7, but it was long after they needed to.

Bing sucking keeps the "tech elite" from adopting it, but it won't stop people from using it if it's presented as the "default" option.

Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.

Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.

Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.

Until evidence appears otherwise, I'm going to assume that HTC and Samsung, two companies who have the most to lose in this deal, will give a good indication of what's going on. Since BOTH of them came out (AFTER that initial canned statement) in support of the claims and BOTH of them re-affirmed their commitment to android, I'm going to go with that.

It's obvious that some things will change (I think all the manufacturers will be quicker to update their devices now, for example) But you're presenting an argument that Google is going to commit financial suicide in their primary market (advertising) for the CHANCE that they can make money selling phones, and you're presenting NO evidence to support this, just conjecture based off of your opinions on the workings on the company, and your assumption that Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc are ALL lying.

As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?

They didn't set it up that way because they couldn't. Google took a calculated risk. The only way they could get an OS out there and get traction quickly enough was to make it open source. They took a calculated risk that they could provide enough services and enough power through the Google brand that Android forks would not gain too much traction.

And it's not necessarily an altogether wrong assumption. 550 000 activations per day are proving them right.

So far....

As for keeping Bing off. Again, people don't understand the distinction between Android and the Google brand. You want your handset to say "with Google" on the back? Then you have to use Google's services. All of them. No picking and choosing.

If you don't want to do that, you are free to take Android and build your handsets with all of your own applications, as Amazon is being purported to do.

Baidu is an interesting case. They are putting out their own SDK (unlike Amazon...which is essentially skinning Android like HTC Sense or Samsung TouchWiz and removing Google's apps). So that will be a fork. In reality though, it would probably function like a standalone OS (from the consumer perspective). No Google branding. No Android apps. All of Baidu's own proprietary services. Developers will have to build apps for Android and for Yi OS. Will that attract developers and device makers? Perhaps. But how well would Yi OS do outside China?

More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.

More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.

I'm an Apple fan and I don't think that. In fact, I agree with Menno that Google launched Android to insure that Google got as many eyeballs as possible in the mobile market. What I disagree with is whether or not its current strategy is wise. As for the 550,000 per day activations, it hasn't helped Google that much as far as revenue is concerned.

And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.

Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services. He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one. If you don't like what he says that's fine, but he isn't hiding anything nefarious. He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.

Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.

I'm an Apple fan and I don't think that. In fact, I agree with Menno that Google launched Android to insure that Google got as many eyeballs as possible in the mobile market. What I disagree with is whether or not its current strategy is wise. As for the 550,000 per day activations, it hasn't helped Google that much as far as revenue is concerned.

I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. To me Android is a lot more like Symbian than iOS. To anybody who has used a Symbian phone this is blatantly obvious. Just sheer comfort level makes this point intuitive. A symbian user will feel far more familiar with Android than with iOS.

But I too agree that Google launched Android to make sure that their services retained or acquired as many eyeballs as possible. That's documented in all that's come out during the Oracle suit. They were far more concerned about Microsoft than they were about Apple. Which is why all this hate by Apple fans for Google is nonsensical. It's not like Google has stopped supporting iOS. Some of the best and most popular applications on iOS are made (or provisioned ie maps) by Google. And I've made this viewpoint too, all along.

Google had no choice. They could not leave themselves at the mercy of Apple. Just look at how Apple has acted with some Google apps (Google Voice is a great example). And then there's the fact that Apple's interests simply don't align with Google. Google needs hardware to be as cheap and as widely distributed as possible. Apple on the other hands, wants high profits margins and will occassionally sign carrier exclusives to keep those margins. Neither philosophy is wrong. They are just different models of business, more appropriate to their industry (Google as an advertiser and software provider, and Apple as a hardware OEM.).

Unfortunately for Google however, Apple was not willling to increase marketshare rapidly (ensuring that Google could ride Apple to the top in the mobile internet space). And with Symbian collapsing, and the likelihood of Blackberry following suit (and RIM aligned with MS), and WebOS being another Apple like vertically integrated platform, the platform that was likely to emerge as being the new Symbian would have been Windows Mobile/Phone. People forget how much traction Windows Mobile had not too long ago. And devices like the HTC Touch Diamond were actually reasonably (in non-Apple terms) popular. Google would have been largely locked out of the mobile space if OEMs like HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc. had decided to stick to Windows Mobile. In that landscape, backing Android was a really good decision.

As for revenue...we'll never know. Unless Google itself provides data that's broken out. Andy Rubin has said Android breaks even. So be it. The more relevant question to ask is what would have happened to Google if they hadn't launched Android? What would Google have lost, had it not pursued Android and Microsoft had moved in to dominate this space? Android is quite sensible to me, as a defensive play. It's ensured that Google's services (from Search to Maps to email) remain relevant in the mobile space. If they haven't made any money, at the very minimum, they've ensured that they haven't lost many customers to their rivals (Microsoft not Apple) either.

I'm a bit disappointed. Google may have legal problems, perhaps even serious ones, but I can't tell from reading his blog. It doesn't appear I can trust FossPatents for an honest take on them anymore. Maybe I never could, but didn't have eyes open enough to notice.

GrokLaw does a very good job on contractual law but everyone that writes for them have such a distaste for the concept of Intelectual Property, it is biased the other way.

Wow, another person who doesn't agree with you that you publicly disparage. Maybe where there's smoke and raging flames there's fire? Rather than a conspiracy to create something you personally don't agree with?

Hiro, your new look attitude towards the potential bias of Florian Mueller and why it's OK has changed a bit since yesterday.

Combined with another of your quotes, "Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise. . .", Is it possible that Apple is now also a client of his, so that disparaging comments about Apple will be avoided too? Dunno, and I'm not making that claim, but using your reasoning it might be assumed by some that Apple is a client.

Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services.

I suspect that he gets paid more from his clickbait than his consultancy. Why else is he so quick to rush to judgement?

And I'm being serious. He bills himself as somebody who advises clients on "the patent wars". He has no legal training. And often provides advice that's flat out wrong. If somebody actually is paying him for his advice, I'd love to know who that is. (and may the gods help them when his crap doesn't pan out).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiro

He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one.

I didn't say he was a journalist. But he does like to portray himself as only putting forward the unvarnished truth by virtue of his "expertise", when he does nothing of the sort. He does spin.

And his chicken little routine is getting tiresome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiro

He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.

It changes a lot. When the media keep quoting him, they talk him up as an expert on open source and patent issues. How do you think they would treat him if they knew he was essentially a paid advocate of Microsoft?

Let's take a non-tech example. Let's say a think tank was advocating a defence project to Congress. Would you consider it irrelevant, if Boeing or Lockheed Martin was quietly funding them?

And if it's not that big a deal as you suggest, why can't he reveal where his paycheck comes from? Whenever he's accused critics of being funded, they've revealed their ties. But he won't reveal his? That's BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiro

Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.

I've read his stuff here and there for longer than that, before he became all Google (or rather anti-Google) all the time. And he was just as bad before. Before Google, there was IBM. And before that there was (oddly enough) Oracle. The guy has a history of shooting first, and not apologizing later (he just misdirects to new issues). Only now he's becoming more annoying and obnoxious because he's got a larger soapbox by virtue of the mainstream media covering tech catfights and seeking him out as an "expert".

And please explain where my take is "contextually out in left field". If I've misunderstood his update to his post on the "shocker", I would not mind somebody explaining it to me and correcting me at all.

I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. To me Android is a lot more like Symbian than iOS. To anybody who has used a Symbian phone this is blatantly obvious. Just sheer comfort level makes this point intuitive. A symbian user will feel far more familiar with Android than with iOS.

But I too agree that Google launched Android to make sure that their services retained or acquired as many eyeballs as possible. That's documented in all that's come out during the Oracle suit. They were far more concerned about Microsoft than they were about Apple. Which is why all this hate by Apple fans for Google is nonsensical. It's not like Google has stopped supporting iOS. Some of the best and most popular applications on iOS are made (or provisioned ie maps) by Google. And I've made this viewpoint too, all along.

I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).

Quote:

Google had no choice. They could not leave themselves at the mercy of Apple. Just look at how Apple has acted with some Google apps (Google Voice is a great example). And then there's the fact that Apple's interests simply don't align with Google. Google needs hardware to be as cheap and as widely distributed as possible. Apple on the other hands, wants high profits margins and will occassionally sign carrier exclusives to keep those margins. Neither philosophy is wrong. They are just different models of business, more appropriate to their industry (Google as an advertiser and software provider, and Apple as a hardware OEM.).

Unfortunately for Google however, Apple was not willling to increase marketshare rapidly (ensuring that Google could ride Apple to the top in the mobile internet space). And with Symbian collapsing, and the likelihood of Blackberry following suit (and RIM aligned with MS), and WebOS being another Apple like vertically integrated platform, the platform that was likely to emerge as being the new Symbian would have been Windows Mobile/Phone. People forget how much traction Windows Mobile had not too long ago. And devices like the HTC Touch Diamond were actually reasonably (in non-Apple terms) popular. Google would have been largely locked out of the mobile space if OEMs like HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc. had decided to stick to Windows Mobile. In that landscape, backing Android was a really good decision.

As for revenue...we'll never know. Unless Google itself provides data that's broken out. Andy Rubin has said Android breaks even. So be it. The more relevant question to ask is what would have happened to Google if they hadn't launched Android? What would Google have lost, had it not pursued Android and Microsoft had moved in to dominate this space? Android is quite sensible to me, as a defensive play. It's ensured that Google's services (from Search to Maps to email) remain relevant in the mobile space. If they haven't made any money, at the very minimum, they've ensured that they haven't lost many customers to their rivals (Microsoft not Apple) either

The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour. I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience. Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google. Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this. As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.

Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.

Actually, many do. They also have posters users using terms like iToy, iTards, iCrap and dozen other derogatory terms to refer Apple products and users.

On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.

On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.

You're kidding, right?!!

If I go to Apple forum sites I rarely, if ever, see jabs at Android... same goes for Android forum sites.

BUT...

If I go to Android rumour/news sites similar to AI then anyone blessing Apple better run for the hills.

I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.

The comments are there. That said, I have to say that from my readings on the interwebs, there seems to be a much more visceral hatred of Google from Apple fans than the other way around, once you get past the 15 year old fanboys. And some of that hatred is just weirdly broad. There's a lot of Apple fans now swearing by Bing just because they dislike Google. That's irrational.

Conversely, a lot of Android fans (even if it's begrudgingly) will willingly acknowledge the many strengths of Apple's business models and Apple's products. I, for one (though I dunno if I'm a pure Android fan since I love and use many Apple products too and the only Android I have is my phone), think the iPhone 4 (never really liked the iPhone before it) is one amazing piece of kit. And I've always suggested to friends that a perfect phone would look like a camera. I was quite pleased to see the iPhone 4 looking like an old Leica.

And then I often find this kind of justification. Some 12 year old pre-pubescent boy called Apple fascists on an Android fan site (though I've yet to see that word used), so therefore my visceral dislike of anything and everything Google is justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour.

I would say it's one of the incidents that contributed to poor relations between the companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way...

Nor did anybody say Apple did. However, as I suggested, Google wasn't worried about Apple (who at the time was aiming for 1% of the smartphone market). They were worried about Microsoft. Keep in mind, these were years, when MS was actually growing its market share and Symbian was dominating. And RIM had struck deals with MS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

...and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience.

And Google has delivered. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of Navigation (which may well be more Apple than Google), they haven't really held back anything from iOS have they? Indeed, a lot of Google's apps are better on iOS than they are on Android.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google.

Indeed. And that shows you that they were committed to iOS, even if they were planning theyir own OS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this.

But that's not Google's goal. That's my point. It wasn't enough for Google to do well on iOS. To ensure that their core business is protected, they had to do well across the mobile space. And Apple was going to grow too slowly for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.

Sure. But what other way was there? Apple fans insist that Google should have essentially bet their business on Apple's success. But think back to 2007 and Apple hoping 1% marketshare. If you were Google, would you have bet your company's future on that. Moreover, would have bet on a company that has a history of being happy with small marketshare, when the very future of your company depends on that platform maximizing marketshare? Think of it from Google's perspective. Not that of an Apple fan.

They are (even today) deathly afraid of Microsoft. Not Apple. Apple to them is something of a frenemy at worst. As long as Apple allows Google's services on their platform, Google has scant to worry about the competition between Android and iOS. But Google is worried that Microsoft could gain marketshare and essentially kill off Google as the world moves towards a mobile-centric future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.

This is a bit presumptuous. You are rolling in Motorola before the deal is even complete and before Google has done anything with it? I think it's disingenous to suggest that all of a sudden they've spent $20 billion on Android. Android is still a separate operating unit of Google. And they are still breaking even (or profitable) on their own. And MMI will still be run as a separate entity. Heck, for all we know Google may keep the patents and spin the manufacturing side off the day after the deal concludes. Then, will they have spent $20 billion?

Moreover, again, you are looking at it from the perpsective of an Apple fan. What if they did this not so much to protect Android as much as they did this to say prevent MS from getting another leg up. Imagine Nokia or MS itself buying Motorola and what that would have done to Google's interest.

But even if they have allegedly spent $20 billion to protect Android. That's small potatoes compared to the consequences of MS dominating the mobile space down the road and effectively using that dominance to kill off Google. They don't want to be another Netscape.

Wow. My apologies then. That's the first time I've seen that type of venom posted on Android-centric sites, tho I really don't spend much time around them. No excuse for it, and I plan to keep my word and chime in before the day is over.

Wow. My apologies then. That's the first time I've seen that type of venom posted on Android-centric sites, tho I really don't spend much time around them. No excuse for it, and I plan to keep my word and chime in before the day is over.

in all fairness the Apple fans there provoked them.

And sheesh at those apple fans there. The ones here are gems. agree or not they at least seem intelligent.

The comments are there. That said, I have to say that from my readings on the interwebs, there seems to be a much more visceral hatred of Google from Apple fans than the other way around, once you get past the 15 year old fanboys. And some of that hatred is just weirdly broad. There's a lot of Apple fans now swearing by Bing just because they dislike Google. That's irrational.

Conversely, a lot of Android fans (even if it's begrudgingly) will willingly acknowledge the many strengths of Apple's business models and Apple's products. I, for one (though I dunno if I'm a pure Android fan since I love and use many Apple products too and the only Android I have is my phone), think the iPhone 4 (never really liked the iPhone before it) is one amazing piece of kit. And I've always suggested to friends that a perfect phone would look like a camera. I was quite pleased to see the iPhone 4 looking like an old Leica.

And then I often find this kind of justification. Some 12 year old pre-pubescent boy called Apple fascists on an Android fan site (though I've yet to see that word used), so therefore my visceral dislike of anything and everything Google is justified.

I would say it's one of the incidents that contributed to poor relations between the companies.

Nor did anybody say Apple did. However, as I suggested, Google wasn't worried about Apple (who at the time was aiming for 1% of the smartphone market). They were worried about Microsoft. Keep in mind, these were years, when MS was actually growing its market share and Symbian was dominating. And RIM had struck deals with MS.

And Google has delivered. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of Navigation (which may well be more Apple than Google), they haven't really held back anything from iOS have they? Indeed, a lot of Google's apps are better on iOS than they are on Android.

Indeed. And that shows you that they were committed to iOS, even if they were planning theyir own OS.

But that's not Google's goal. That's my point. It wasn't enough for Google to do well on iOS. To ensure that their core business is protected, they had to do well across the mobile space. And Apple was going to grow too slowly for that.

Sure. But what other way was there? Apple fans insist that Google should have essentially bet their business on Apple's success. But think back to 2007 and Apple hoping 1% marketshare. If you were Google, would you have bet your company's future on that. Moreover, would have bet on a company that has a history of being happy with small marketshare, when the very future of your company depends on that platform maximizing marketshare? Think of it from Google's perspective. Not that of an Apple fan.

They are (even today) deathly afraid of Microsoft. Not Apple. Apple to them is something of a frenemy at worst. As long as Apple allows Google's services on their platform, Google has scant to worry about the competition between Android and iOS. But Google is worried that Microsoft could gain marketshare and essentially kill off Google as the world moves towards a mobile-centric future.

This is a bit presumptuous. You are rolling in Motorola before the deal is even complete and before Google has done anything with it? I think it's disingenous to suggest that all of a sudden they've spent $20 billion on Android. Android is still a separate operating unit of Google. And they are still breaking even (or profitable) on their own. And MMI will still be run as a separate entity. Heck, for all we know Google may keep the patents and spin the manufacturing side off the day after the deal concludes. Then, will they have spent $20 billion?

Moreover, again, you are looking at it from the perpsective of an Apple fan. What if they did this not so much to protect Android as much as they did this to say prevent MS from getting another leg up. Imagine Nokia or MS itself buying Motorola and what that would have done to Google's interest.

But even if they have allegedly spent $20 billion to protect Android. That's small potatoes compared to the consequences of MS dominating the mobile space down the road and effectively using that dominance to kill off Google. They don't want to be another Netscape.

I'm not going to delve into whose fanboi is ruder/angrier because there really is no objective answer to that.

Ok, so on to real subjects. I am pretty sure that there was bad blood months before the google voice app because I was actually using that product at the time.

You seem to reply as if I'm arguing that Google didn't want to provide its services to Apple while that is not the case. My point is that Apple treated them as a preferred partner therefore very little chance of them screwing them over for Bing.

You stated that Apple wanted 1% of the smartphone market. That's not the case. Apple wanted 1% of the entire cell phone market. Analysts thought Jobs was crazy when he stated that because the smartphone market was not large enough for that to happen unless Apple had well over half of smartphone sales. They didn't take into account that smartphone sales would explode with the new UI/UX paradigm. Coming out with its own OS has caused Apple to start developing alternative services (not yet released).

As for the revenue, Motorola isn't profitable nor is it breaking even. It has been losing money. Also, even if Google runs it as a separate company, the losses are still Google's regardless. This is why its handset partners should be a little nervous because even if Google doesn't plan to outright cut them out, it will need to figure out how to make Motorola profitable and that money will most likely come at the expense of its partners.

A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. "Dissembling" likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.

I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).

by the same token, a lot of apple fans imply that Android users are:
1) Cheap: Implying that only cheap people buy android and that android users never pay for apps.
2) Stupid: Implying that people only buy Android if they're forced into it, or if they don't know any better. If we do, we're called-->
3) Paid Shills: Certain members of this site will call ANYONE who questions AI or Apple paid employees of Google. Implying that we're part of some massive campaign to spread disinformation. Because, you know, a company would pay someone to troll the comments of AI.
4) "fandroids:" the false assumption that just because we question apple's policies and support googles on some matters on this site, that we obviously think Apple is Satan and google can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is, is if I want to talk about criticisms about Google, I do it somewhere where I can interact with people who will know what I'm talking about. Most of the commenters here have NEVER used an Android device as a daily driver, so they won't understand what I'm saying and will instead harp talking points they've heard from writers like DED. Some of the MOST critical sites you'll find towards google are the Android "fan" sites. That's why it baffles a lot of users when they see sites like AI where the writers seem almost defensive of apple.

Quote:

The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour. I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience. Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google. Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this. As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.

I actually think the GV thing was (partially) because of ATT. GV gives you free texting, and that was a HUGE revenue source for ATT with the iphone. The bad blood between Google and Apple couldn't have helped, but ATT has blocked Apple from implementing features before.

Quote:

Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.

I've written this other places, but I think Google will use Motorola as a (soft) stick. They'll make motorola favor OS updates over customizations and strong arm telecoms to limit the bloat on them, at least on high end devices. Motorola Could've done this, but chose not to.

This will encourage HTC and Samsung to do the same (and make it much harder for Verizon to say no). One of the biggest problems with HTC/Samsung/Moto is that they still operate on the old telecom model. So once a customer was locked into a contract, you just kinda forgot about them. By making moto a lot faster at updates, it will encourage HTC and Samsung to do the same. Google can accomplish this without giving a SINGLE line of code early to motorola.

Look at the Cyanogen Mod team. They manage updates across 20+ phones, often having a "final" stable build released before it pushes out on the devices, if the manufacturers push it out at all. Imagine what a PAID team could accomplish if they were told OS updates mattered?

All google needs from Motorola is for it to stop losing money. I don't think they intend to turn it into a profit machine.